'Loob' and 'labas': Spatial constructions of safety and risk amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines.

This article argues that local constructions of risky and safe spaces, as articulated by the notions 'loob' (inside) and 'labas' (outside), informed popular and political responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines, leading to an overemphasis on staying at home and, conversely, a general avoidance or fear of outdoor spaces that was at times reinforced by public health authorities. Practices and policies related to the pandemic response rendered this binary opposition between 'loob' and 'labas' visible, from regulations concerning the use of personal protective equipment to restrictions of access to outdoor spaces. While this emergent form of bodily proxemics was contested and negotiated over time, its tenacity throughout the pandemic underscores the importance of understanding how people spatialize risk in times of health crises.

Pharmaceutical messianism and the COVID-19 pandemic.

As part of their populist performances during disease outbreaks, public officials and politicians tend to offer 'miracle cures' or 'wonder drugs' that can supposedly treat or prevent the disease in question. This article analyzes contemporary instances of what we call 'pharmaceutical messianism' and proposes four characteristics for this phenomenon, namely, that it: (1) emerges during times of extraordinary health crisis; (2) builds on pre-existing knowledge, practices, and sentiments; (3) borrows from medical, often heterodox, authority; and (4) involves accessible, affordable, and/or familiar substances. Demonstrating the analytic value of our framework, we present three case studies, constructed using academic and journalistic sources, during the COVID-19 pandemic: hydroxychloroquine in France, ivermectin in the Philippines, and Covid-Organics in Madagascar. We conclude by identifying some implications of our findings on public health and avenues for future research.

Fear, mistrust, and vaccine hesitancy: Narratives of the dengue vaccine controversy in the Philippines.

This article applies a qualitative approach to the 2017 dengue vaccine controversy involving Sanofi Pasteur's Dengvaxia to understand vaccine hesitancy and related anxieties in contemporary Philippines. Through a multisited project that investigated the health aspirations and lived experiences of low- and middle-income Filipinos across urban and rural Philippines, this article distills the perspectives of both ordinary community members and health workers in local and national capacities regarding the controversy-and how it altered their perceptions toward vaccines, health care, and government. Our study reveals widespread mistrust and fear in the communities toward both the state and health institutions following the controversy, with frontline health workers bearing the brunt of the communities' apprehensions, and the media partly responsible in fomenting these fears. Given the repetitive nature of health and vaccine controversies, this article suggests the importance of responsible journalism, well-calibrated crisis communications, and a people-centered health paradigm that involves exploring local contexts of vaccine hesitancy and mining people's lived experiences in tackling present and future health crises-especially now in the advent of COVID-19 vaccinations.